Me, I just ain't interested in the possibility of a KABOOM right in my face.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
darkest2000,
The awkward reloads are trainable, and to suggest that we let an awkward reload outweigh superior performance and range is counterintuitive.

Sure you can train and become proficient even on the least ergonomic of designs, just look at the Russian soldiers doing tactical reloads on their AKs. But why should you and for what gain when there are better solutions?

And what are the "superior performance" that you speak of?

quote:

All the contemporary bullpups are arguably more ambidextrous than any AR15, aside from the off-hand shooting mentioned above, which is a rare need and also mostly a matter of training. I don't think a longer barrel and it's advantages in performance and range are irrelevant; neither does the Army, it seems, with the current NGSW trials. In a near-peer conflict, which seems more likely than a continuation of the counter-terror efforts that proliferated the short-barrel AR, the extra range and performance will be appreciated, and to have it in a compact package seems advantageous. I also disagree that they're cool to look at.

If extra range is what you're looking for than I think a bullpup is even less relevant, otherwise we'd see a lot more DMR rifles in that configuration yet we do not.

[/quote]
The proximity of explosions is of little concern, in my opinion. I'd certainly be curious to know if injury statistics differ between the US, and bullpup-using nations. Soldiering has it's inherent dangers: being shot, being blown-up, breaking limbs on a drop zone, explosive breaching, etc. Is a bullpup's explosion contained within that rifle's chamber next to your cheek any more hair-raising than an exponentially higher-magnitude explosion inside a shoulder-fired rocket launcher, a mortar tube, or artillery piece?[/QUOTE]
It has more to do with shooter comfort than concerns of injury.

I've owned various bullpups over the years to include AUG, FS2000, Tavor TAR, X95, Desert Tech MDX...so I'm no stranger to bullpups, it also doesn't help that the current crop of bullpups on the market are just in generally...not very well designed or thought out compared to their predecessors. The only one that I feel is truly on par in terms of ergonomics and ease of manipulation is the AUG and that came out decades ago. Nothing else comes close to it.

I just think people get too hung up on fast reloads in general.

The "superior performance" all comes down to the extra velocity gained while maintaining a small footprint. This conversation was born of my consideration of bullpups in the context of gaining performance while keeping the profile of a short-barrel AR.

The extra range is relative. I am not looking for a "long range" weapon, and therefore not a DMR-type rifle. I am looking for something that will have a flatter trajectory and more performance at ranges inside 500M, when compared to my current 10" and 11.5" ARs.

Do you have a bullpup standing by as your "go-to" gun? If "No", then, considering your experience with bullpups, why do you opt not to use one?

quote:

more performance at ranges inside 500M, when compared to my current 10" and 11.5" ARs.

This.

ICE and some legacy agencies used the AUG before DHS was stood up, and I really have to wonder WTF when I see guys rolling up with 11.5" or short-stocking AR-platform rifles today.

Then I remember things like why the US went with the 92/M9 instead of the P226 and remember that most bullpups are still protected by patent/IP and sole source purchases.

From a procurement standpoint, just easier. The Australian Army just declassified the M16A2 vs AUG testing docs. AUG/Austeyr 88 was adopted based on performance, replaced based on systems cost and multiple source vs sole source procurement.

From a training standpoint, just easier. Many LEO candidates come from a military background, lots of civilian trainers are familiar with it.. I'd probably say at least in the US it's easiest to find someone to train AR, AK, and then AUG in that order.

I used to have a lot of guns for different stuff until I sat down and thought about what a "competent" gun looks and came up with exactly the same thing you did.

Sealed the deal when I watched Henry on Nine Hole Reviews drop targets up to 500m (hanging with the M16A2 in his other reviews) with something that fits in my backpack.

My AUG is smaller than my AK folded but fires from a full stock, it's quieter than a 10.5" with a can and better balanced when I run or open doors, and with a can it's still smaller
than my AR...

...AND it's piston driven AND can change barrels without tools, so it could even eat steel-cased gnarly stuff (which is the big advantage of AKs IMHO) and come out ahead based on Lucky Gunner's economic-driven "is it worth effing up your barrel" analysis.

I now have about 7k of stuff in the classified because my AUG hangs from 0m-500m: an AK, a 10.5" pistol and two 16" ARs are all on the chopping block.

Specialization is for insects.

I'm 5'6" and I like a short LOP in rifles. I use the squared up arms tucked in shooting stance and avoid "blading". Most shotguns with their long LOP feel awkward, so my 590 (non-A1) has a Magpul SGA with none of the spacers in it. On AR's I generally set adjustable stocks at maybe two clicks out. My AK has a Zhukov folder set at minimum length. My only fixed stock AR has a KE arms polymer lower with an A1 length stock that is tolerable but not ideal. A2 fixed stocks are too long.

So for me, most bullpups have a LONG LOP and feel ass heavy. And since I'm left handed the ejection issue is a primary factor. The VHS is actually pretty compelling to me since it can easily be switched over and the LOP is adjustable. All the Tavors I've seen are right handed and I would need to buy a new bolt for left hand ejection. I DO like having a 16" barrel in a short platform both for ballistics, noise, and no need for an NFA SBR stamp or a "brace".

But here's the simple truth - the AR pattern is standardized and the design is essentially "free". Everyone makes parts now, and all the competition has resulted in very good prices. It's proven and reliable, and the biggest competitors to it in the military are piston derivatives like the HK 416/417. Or hybrid AR-15/AR-18 platforms like the MCX. Even the SCAR which has a similar format didn't really get very far.

If I buy/build AR pattern rifles, spare parts are plentiful and inexpensive. The fact that I can get an outstanding barrel like a Criterion for $300, and a top end barrel like a Bartlein or Krieger for $500-$600 makes the cost of a non-premium barrel for other rifles look silly.

For most people, and many governments now, the cost, modularity and spare parts availability of the AR platform overshadow the benefits of a bullpup. It also doesn't help that the SA80 and Famas aren't exactly stellar rifles. The AUG was cool, the Tavor is good, and the VHS might actually get some traction. But still, they are twice the price of a decent AR and for anyone but enthusiasts, that's too much. And that doesn't just affect bullpups, it affects the SCAR, Bren, MR556, and every other platform that costs double the price of an AR.

quote:

It also doesn't help that the SA80 and Famas aren't exactly stellar rifles.

[THREADDRIFT]Still wouldn't mind kits.[/THREADDRIFT]

To me, the concept of the bullpup is fine in theory but fails in execution. If I were to adopt a bullpup, there is only one I would consider: The AUG. I owned one of the first ones with the fixed optic. That optic did not impress me so I sold it. Optic aside, it was a solid performer. The current model has none of the failings of the older optic and is a big improvement.

I am fairly certain that the LOP adjustment on the VHS is one of those "just because you can doesn't mean you should" things. Just because it's adjustable doesn't mean it can be made shorter than any other bullpup. It's probably either long, extra long, or super extra long.

I also use an AR stock at two clicks out, yet a bullpup feels just fine to me, as do my non-adjustable stocks on 55X rifles. I guess LOP to me is a lot like a trigger; I am not super particular. Funny, too, that we don't mind reaching way out on our handguard on an AR15, but the LOP is deal-breaker on a bullpup. Both hands are likely closer to your body when handling a bullpup, than they are when shooting your AR.

i had an MSAR that was ok. balance was a little wonky but accuracy was good despite the trigger. just never could get use to the 'feel' of it so I let it go



I also had this disaster! bought it when it first came out. horrible, horrible rifle. balance was terrible, optic was terrible, trigger was atrocious, at best, it was so bulky and unweieldy that I ended up hating it and let it go as well. that's my experience with bullpups and I don't think ill ever have another.

^^^ but you could have made it the Pulse Rifle Mk 2 and starred in Aliens 7. Some people just lack vision.

ill try to do better next time

To reiterate, I have no experience with bullpups, but this thread has piqued my interest in the carbines. One of the things that strikes me in looking at the bullpups pictured in this thread and elsewhere on the Internet is how the designs and features of many of the guns require the shooter to place his support hand very close to the trigger guard. Except in the prone position when it may be necessary for some shooters like old guys without the strength and flexibility they once had, holding the weapon like that with both hands close together is less desirable for controlling the gun, and especially for rapid transitions among multiple targets. To see what I’m referring to, look at how most three-gun shooters hold their rifles, or even just consider the geometry and physics of our arms in the process.

And although it’s a less common feature, the fold down long vertical foregrip of the AUG also promotes the bad habit of holding the front of the gun with one’s hand far removed from the bore line of the barrel as if milking a cow.

Properly designed handguards that extend to the muzzle of a bullpup can help alleviate both issues, but the design defects are things to consider with some guns. And yes, I know that my opinions on this will result in immediate, “Well, I have an AUG [or whatever], and have no problems with any of that!” responses, but a few exceptions don’t change the fundamental facts.

Added: And I will also admit that the short handguard of some bullpups may be more of an issue in competitions with artificially large numbers of targets that must be engaged very rapidly at close ranges than real-world situations, but it nevertheless may affect some people’s preferences—including mine.

As for why bullpups aren’t given more serious consideration by military forces, some of the reasons have been discussed already, but one thing to keep in mind is that the processes are run by people, and people make decisions that affect what’s solicited and considered. I had the experience of witnessing the acceptance of the M16 as the Army’s rifle and still remember the cracks by senior NCOs about its being “made by Mattel.” The autoloading M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, and M14 were all a change from the US military’s older weapons, but at least they looked like a rifle was “supposed” to look: wood stock with traditional pistol grip and steel parts. No plastic and aluminum or Nazi- or Commie-inspired “saw handle”* grip, and certainly no .22 caliber peashooter cartridge†. If someone just doesn’t like the looks of a weapon (which we see expressed here all the time), there’s a good chance he will start focusing on all the supposed actual negatives of the gun.

* Credit to Jeff Cooper.
† The irony was that the 30 Carbine cartridge was a glorified pistol round but that didn’t keep the weapon from being extremely popular throughout its service life. And of course it at least fired a bullet of the gods-given .30 caliber. (Whew!)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sigfreund,

I was just thinking about shotguns and how good clay shooters like long barrels with good "swing".

I don't complete in 3-gun but from what I see 18" barrels and long handguards are the "thing". I know the 18" barrel is partially to get rifle length gas action to reduce recoil impulse. But is there also a benefit with regard to rapidly engaging targets and moving smoothly between them without overshooting or wavering? The long handguard with support hand extended out promotes better control

Bullpups are rear heavy and front light. Does that lead to less stability during aimed fire? More wavering off the point of aim because of less mass inertia?

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
More wavering off the point of aim because of less mass inertia?

Yes. That’s one of the reasons old target rifles used for traditional bull’s-eye shooting like my Winchester model 52 have long, heavy barrels. The length was for longer sight radius with irons, but the mass was to provide greater inertia to hold the barrel in position. It’s also why pistols used for the same purpose had “bull” barrels and could often be equipped with supplemental weights: more inertia = less movement due to minor movements of the shooter’s body.

Added: Lest someone misinterpret my comments, long, heavy barrels don’t make it easier to transition quickly in an arc to engage multiple targets: on the contrary. That’s for the same reason that heavy barrels are better for shooting unsupported at a single target, but when making fast transitions the added inertia makes it harder to start the swing and then to stop it. Lighter barrels are better for fast transitions, but it’s best if we can also extend our grasp and clamp our hand firmly (“C-clamp”) out near the end of a long handguard rather than having our hands close together. For action type shooting at multiple close targets I consider hand position and how we control the barrel to be much more important than barrel weight.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sigfreund,

When I was deployed in 2003 to Kuwait with the ANG I had an interaction with a troop from the RAF Regiment which is the ground protection force of the RAF, essentially Army soldiers assigned to them more or less. He was toting his L85 bullpup rifle and I asked to check it out. The guy basically told me he thought they were a POS and wished they had what we had.

Yeah, the SA80/L85 was notorious for having big problems for the first many years of its service life. They weren't really ironed out until the A2 version was introduced starting in 2002, ~15 years after the L85 was initially adopted.

You guys are beating around the bush -

Some mentioning butt heavy, balance, etc.

The bull pups are all butt heavy. Try shooting for accuracy at 200 yards and the light barrel is all over the place. Like a piece of yarn blowing in the wind.
In an urban environment, close quarters, shoot from the hip, spray and pray? Sure it will work. Additionally, it is light. On a strap, over one shoulder, easy carry all day and really not in the way.

But for any accuracy, borrow one and try it. Can it be mastered? Sure, ask some of the others who had them and could shoot them. In my mind, to do it well, throw away all the past experience and start from scratch. Ultra light front end is a whole new game.

I was always under the impression the far-out, C-clamp grip enabled better control because you're getting more leverage closer to the muzzle. The bullpup does the same thing, by bringing the muzzle to you, as opposed to you reaching for it. I have never tried quick lateral transitions with a bullpup, but I can't imagine it'd be worse. I have a borrowed AUG in my safe right now, but have been hesitant to shoot it, for it's lack of silencer; I may have to just get over that.

The light front end wavering when trying to engage a target at a longer range is an interesting thought. I don't know that it has much of an impact though, in a soldiering context. If I am engaging something from most any range outside CQB scenarios, I am going to utilize whatever cover I have, to brace myself, or just lay down. If I can get over my loud gun aversion, I'll certainly try that as well.

I’m not sure I can explain this well (or correctly), but I don’t think bullpups are as ergonomic in a dynamic environment with lots of moving and target transitions. This is partly for reasons sigfreund and lefty mentioned. The fact that the HSLD types in armies with standard issue bullpups use m4 style carbines speaks volumes. It can’t just be a fashion thing, and for interoperability with US special ops, mag compatibility is enough.

Bullpups typically work best with a bladed posture on your strong side shoulder. But, modern doctrine assumes troops will have chest plates, and we now generally recommend shooting squared up to the target, behind that plate. The long LOP of bullpups make that more difficult. In a bladed stance with a bullpup, your easy left-right range of motion without moving your feet is less than a carbine with more modern stance. Add in ease of off shoulder transitions, or even ability to aim to the extreme side without transitioning to weak shoulder. Also, movement is easier when squared up than when bladed.

I don’t have a ton of experience with it, but I wonder if there is something to the idea the longer barrel and hand position out front stabilizes shooting, as well.

Basically, run a USPSA (pistol) style course with bullpup vs carbine, and even if you are well trained, the ergonomics of a bullpup generally don’t work as well.

It’s hard to explain why hand position and distance from the shoulder affects muzzle movement without a video or pictures, but I’ll try.

When we have something like a long gun there are three points along its length from the back end of the stock to the muzzle that need to be considered for this discussion: the end of the stock and muzzle are two, but the other is where the gun is being supported between the two. That can be a bipod, a rest like a bag, or if we’re shooting offhand, for example, our hand that’s grasping the handguard or forend.

First, we’ll assume that movement imparted to the gun is only at the stock end where it contacts our shoulder.

At this point it will be clearer if we lay something like a long cleaning rod on a table with each end marked with an object like a cartridge. What we’re going to do is move the back (“shoulder”) end of the rod left or right some small distance, like an inch or so. When we do that, we hold the rod by pinching it with the fingers of our other hand so that it pivots at that point: the shoulder and muzzle ends move through an arc, but the pivot point remains stationary.

Now see what happens when we move the shoulder end to the side as we change the position of the pivot point. The closer the pivot point is to the shoulder end, the greater will be the distance the muzzle end of the rod moves. In other words, as we’re holding a rifle and our body moves slightly, the closer the bipod, rest, or our hand is to our shoulder, the greater effect any body movement at our shoulder will have on the muzzle. If our support hand is holding the gun near the muzzle, involuntary body movements will have less effect than if we’re holding it right in front of the trigger.

That’s why if we want to hold the gun steady for an accurate shot, it’s better to hold it as far from our shoulder as possible*, and if a short handguard or a bullpup design prevents our extending our support hand and arm out as far as we can, that means we won’t be able to control the muzzle movement as well. Any movement of our body will be magnified greater the closer our support hand (the pivot point) is to the end of the stock.

But what about movement of our support hand that’s holding the forend or handguard? Well, the same lever arm physics also work to our advantage to have our hand as far forward as possible. Any small involuntary movement of our support hand has more effect on where the barrel is pointed the farther back our hand is from the muzzle and closer it is to the end of the stock.

This is something else that can be demonstrated with our cleaning rod on the table. For that demonstration, the pivot point is the end of the rod (where the stock would contact our shoulder). As we push the rod to one side with the back in held in place, the farther back the movement is, the more effect on the front end of the rod any particular amount of movement will have.

I realize all that may be hard to follow, but it really is just a matter of simple physics of how levers work.

* As a last point, “holding the forend as far from our shoulder as possible” obviously includes the limitations imposed by our body strength and flexibility. When shooting offhand, competition bull’s-eye shooters typically hold heavy target rifles with their hands farther back and will even rest their upper arms against their abdomens because it’s very difficult to hold such rifles up in position for any length of time. When shooting from the prone I must bring my support hand far back because I can’t hold a rifle in position with my hand extended toward the muzzle.